Skip to content

Time For A Carbon Clean Up, Suckers!

February 18, 2016

By Paul Homewood 


h/t 1saveenergys 




Take a deep breath (and don’t breath it out again), and read what New “Scientist” has to say!


ECSTATIC celebrations broke out in Paris just before Christmas. World leaders acclaimed their freshly forged deal to fight climate change. There were hugs and tears. But hold on a second. Were the celebrations justified? The Paris agreement says governments will find a way to limit global warming to “well below 2 °C” and do their darndest to have no more than 1.5 °C. Is that even possible?

Aiming for 1.5 °C is definitely a good idea, since two degrees of warming will almost certainly wipe low-lying islands off the map (see “1.5 °C versus 2 °C“). According to some climate scientists, it is also an impossible goal. Others are more optimistic, and think 1.5 °C might just be within reach. Just. One thing is clear: if we are going to do it, we will have to create a whole new industry to suck vast quantities of carbon dioxide directly from the air. Without these “negative emissions” we can bid farewell to 1.5 °C.

So what would this carbon-sucking industry look like? From planting the Sahara to farming the oceans, there are a number of solutions we could deploy. The question is how realistic are they, and could they ever be sufficient?

The essential task is to control the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have pushed levels from 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution to 400 ppm now by burning fossil fuels and trashing nature. As a result, in 2015, meteorological stations around the world recorded a 1 °C rise in global temperatures above pre-industrial times. The …


The rest is paywalled, but three things should already be abundantly clear:


1) They seem to have woken up to the fact that nobody, other than the developed world, agreed to do anything at Paris to actually reduce GHG emissions, never mind to the levels demanded by the greenies to prevent our imminent death.

2) They are claiming that all of the “supposed” 1C rise is due to man, when most scientists claim no such thing, and accept that much of the rise has been natural.

3) They talk of “trashing” nature, when most of the evidence  points to the global climate being far more optimal than it was in the Little Ice Age.



But, of course, the whole nonsensical process will create another massive gravy train, both to feed grant addicted scientists and transfer wealth to the same set of shysters who are  currently making money out of the renewable scam.



Meanwhile, does anybody know if New Scientist actually covers any proper science at all these days? Answers on a postcard please.

  1. sensferguson permalink
    February 18, 2016 11:43 pm

    Don’t you mean answers on a postage stamp? I wonder how many people at the NS actually have studied real science?

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      February 19, 2016 6:45 am

      You beat me to it with the postage stamp. I gave up reading it in the early nineties, if not sooner, but I can refresh my disdain as it is available in my doctor’s waiting room..

  2. markl permalink
    February 18, 2016 11:43 pm

    The whole AGW scam is falling apart because the UN misread that countries can be conned into donating money to finance a Socialist world economy. Carbon tax in the US is blatant robbery of corporations and the money is staying in the US. Politicians view the tax as a convenient funding source and no Western country is asking forgiveness via climate reparations for UN distribution. This scam is so deep it will take a while longer to wind down but failure is imminent. As more apocalyptic projections of doom pass without being realized their chances will only diminish more. Amen.

  3. February 19, 2016 12:09 am

    The scam, corruption and fraud runs wide and deep. This is my contribution to unwinding it. A multi year effort with no end in sight I’m afraid. Naturally it leads right to the UN and to a former New Zealand prime minister aiming to be Ban Ki Moon’s replacement.

    Read on and spread it far and wide.

  4. gnomish permalink
    February 19, 2016 2:14 am

    not actually pertinent in this instance, but-
    whenever you want a scientific reprint:

  5. Graeme No.3 permalink
    February 19, 2016 6:51 am

    I wonder how they know the temperature will fall if they “suck up CO2”. As far as I recall 280ppm is associated with temperatures of -1 to +2℃ in the Holocene and 2-3.5℃ in previous interglacials. And there is the little matter of whether the levels in the ice cores are accurate.
    But if they want to green the Sahara then the best bet is to get the temperature UP by 2℃ and replicate the Holocene Optimum when it was green naturally. (see Tassel frescoes).

  6. Peter MacFarlane permalink
    February 19, 2016 10:13 am

    Lubos Motls calls the magazine “Nude Socialist”.

    You have to agree he has a point.

  7. February 19, 2016 10:20 am

    ‘To hit it we have to suck a lot of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere’.

    If they believe in that the mag should be called ‘No Scientists’.

    • February 19, 2016 12:54 pm

      ‘To hit it we have to suck a lot of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere’.

      Isn’t that why God created plants? Where do they think coal got all of that carbon? Oh, excuse my negligence, I ascribed “thought” to them. Were they capable of that, they would not be espousing this detritus.

  8. Jack Dawkins permalink
    February 19, 2016 10:26 am

    Even before I cancelled my subscription about 10 years ago it was known as “Non Scientist”

  9. February 19, 2016 10:36 am

    I gave up subscribing to NS many years ago. The final straw was when they didn’t publish a letter of mine but published one by Caroline Lucas, that well known non-scientist, who was then leader of the Green Party.

  10. February 19, 2016 11:08 am

    This carbon sequestration malarkey is going to be a bonanza for universities, expect many Professors of Carbon Sequestration to emerge onto the airwaves over the next few years.

    How and when did universities go from a few real profs (physics and chemistry) to many shysters with titles like Sustainability and Energy Policy?

  11. Edmonton Al permalink
    February 19, 2016 12:47 pm

    How do you explain the following:
    Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 100 parts per million (one part per ten thousand) over the past century.
    Experts claim that this one molecule has heated the other 10,000 molecules up by more than one degree centigrade.

    In order for one molecule to heat up 10,000 other molecules by 1°C, the effective temperature of that one
    molecule would have to be 10,000°C – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.
    How is this possible???

    • February 19, 2016 1:38 pm

      What a nasty question to ask an ‘expert’….Clear, simple with a sting in the tail,

      well done!!!

    • February 24, 2016 7:33 am

      That is a great question, Al. Would you be agreeable to me possibly using it some day – with attribution to you of course.

  12. Mike Sugar permalink
    February 19, 2016 5:36 pm

    Answers on a postcard … reminds me of the late, great comic genius Spike Milligan who created a 3 X 3 squares prize crossword.

    The central square was blank and numbered “1”. The surrounding 8 squares were black.

    1. Same as 1 down
    1. Same as 1 across

    Answers on a dustbin lid to your nearest prime minister.

  13. February 24, 2016 7:40 am

    New Scientist is just a Trojan Horse to sell advertising (probably for carbon intensive products and green scams)
    – The use the word science to get it into libraries and universities , but oe can spot that many stories have little scientific rigor and have just been harvested as a base to stuff adverts around.
    ..Same goes for many sciency sounding websites eg etc.

    Young peope often mistake that the state “Aunties” ABC. BBC, CBC and Guardian for NEWS outlets, whereas actually theyare just info-tainment channels driven by the choices of bosses and culture of right-on leftism

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: